I disagree. Just cause people don't acknowledge it - doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When DT was questioned (post regeneration) why he didn't change faces - he did not it reply 'Cause it wasn't a full regeneration?' - he reply that he syphoned off the regenerative energy that would have otherwise changed his face.
Full regeneration minus the new face.
He regenerated. Just because it doesn't fit with YOUR perception of what a regeneration is, doesn't mean it didn't happen RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
As for Matt Smith burning regenerative energy to heal River - that's all he did. Burn some energy. There was never any question of him regenerating. Also, he made it clear he owed River some of the energy she gave him - when she infused him with her last ten regnerations, so that he might live - in Let's Kill Hitler.
I disagree. Just cause people don't acknowledge it - doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Nor does it mean that it did.
When DT was questioned (post regeneration) why he didn't change faces - he did not it reply 'Cause it wasn't a full regeneration?' - he reply that he syphoned off the regenerative energy that would have otherwise changed his face.
I'm afraid the transcripts don't support that interpretation.
You see? Used the regeneration energy to heal myself, but soon as I was done, I didn't need to change. I didn't want to, why would I? (he adjust his tie with a smug expression) Look at me! So, to stop the energy going all the way, I siphoned off the rest into a handy bio-matching receptacle, namely, my hand, my hand there, my handy spare hand!
"Used the regeneration energy to heal myself", just as you described Eleventh doing. Not "regenerated to heal myself, but chose to keep the same face". "Stop the energy going all the way" clearly discounts any claims of a full regeneration.
He regenerated. Just because it doesn't fit with YOUR perception of what a regeneration is, doesn't mean it didn't happen RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
And just because it fits in with YOUR perception of what a regeneration is, doesn't mean it happened at all.
At the very least, you should probably stop labelling things as FACT, because of all the guesses and assumptions you've made.
i think the title of matt smiths first episdode "The Eleventh Hour" signifies that he is the 11th doctor. if the wirters intended that Tennents healing was an actual regenration they wouldnt have used that title.
Given how seriously the conversation is being taken: I guess we'd have to figure out what it is about Time Lord DNA that allows regenerations (and, yes, it is the DNA per the usual not-particularly-scientific 2011 mumbo jumbo) and what it is that causes that capacity to decline — is it the new cells that are a poorer generational copy or is it the release of energy that depletes them?
It's pretty obvious to me that Tennant's Doctor would not have been able to deliberately stop a proper regeneration from changing him. Considering how distraught he was at losing his identity when he regenerated into Matt there's no way he would have let it happen if he had a choice about it.
Ergo, proper regenerations don't give him a choice. Ergo, what happened in Journey's End was not a proper regeneration.
It's pretty obvious to me that Tennant's Doctor would not have been able to deliberately stop a proper regeneration from changing him. Considering how distraught he was at losing his identity when he regenerated into Matt there's no way he would have let it happen if he had a choice about it.
Ergo, proper regenerations don't give him a choice. Ergo, what happened in Journey's End was not a proper regeneration.
It was a proper regeneration. It gave life to a dying Doctor and created an entirely new Doctor. I don't know how much more proper you can get. It is a textbook regneration.
As for why he was so distraught at regenerating in 'End of Time' (as opposed to 'Journeys End') - it's because he didn't have a severed hand 'handy' - so didn't have the option of syphoning off the face-changing energy.
It was a proper regeneration. It gave life to a dying Doctor and created an entirely new Doctor. I don't know how much more proper you can get. It is a textbook regneration.
In what way was he "entirely new"?
Antibiotics can give life to a dying Doctor. Anti-venom could give life to a dying Doctor. Regeneration energy from the severed hand could give life to a dying Doctor.
None of these things imply an actual regeneration.
It's speculation at best and, to me, it doesn't sound credible at all, let alone a FACT.
Ergo, proper regenerations don't give him a choice. Ergo, what happened in Journey's End was not a proper regeneration.
The difference wasn't in the choice, it was that he conveniently happened to have the one type of item in the universe that would enable him to short-circuit the process. Without that, it would have completed as normal, no matter how much he willed it.
It was a proper regeneration. It gave life to a dying Doctor and created an entirely new Doctor. I don't know how much more proper you can get.
So, in other words, completely unlike any other regeneration? A 'textbook' regeneration involves the Doctor walking away with an entirely new face and body. That didn't happen, and two things did happen that usually don't. I'd say that's as far from 'proper' as you can get.
The difference wasn't in the choice, it was that he conveniently happened to have the one type of item in the universe that would enable him to short-circuit the process. Without that, it would have completed as normal, no matter how much he willed it.
So, in other words, completely unlike any other regeneration? A 'textbook' regeneration involves the Doctor walking away with an entirely new face and body. That didn't happen, and two things did happen that usually don't. I'd say that's as far from 'proper' as you can get.
It was a 'WIldcard' Regeneration - as opposed to a 'Traditional' Regeneration. Things happened. Stuff got kerraazy.... :eek:
Ignoring John Hurt's placement altogether for a moment.
David Tennants Doctor (the 10th - as far as we knew at the time) regenerated in 'Journeys End'. FACT. (1st Version)
Thereafter, despite choosing to maintain the face of his 10th incarnation - he was actually the 11th incarnation of the Timelord known as the Doctor. FACT. (2nd Version.)
Coincidentally, this regeneration created the First Human / Timelord known as the Doctor. The first, and only. FACT. (3rd Version.)
David Tennant therefore played three versions of the Doctor. It happened right in front of your eyes.
If peeps want to call them all 10... Good for them! However, it doesn't change the fact, David Tennant played Doctor v10, Doctor v11 and Metacrisis Doctor v1.
Now, throw John Hurt in the mix, just before Ecclestone, and all the Doctor's who came after John Hurt get bumped up a number.
Hurt was 9.
Eccleston was 10.
Tennant was 11.
Then he was 12. (As explained above, but bumped up a number.)
Making Smith, 13.
Moffat always promised 'The Name of The Doctor' would rewrite Who's history. This is how he did it.
I can see it's been explained to you elsewhere, but you are choosing to ignore what the actual explanations according to the Doctor himself are telling you, so why should you listen to the others explaining why calling it a fact is wrong.
Anyway, just as an addendum - the regeneration energy was used to 'heal' (in his words) not regenerate. He then siphoned off the unused energy into the nearby receptacle (his hand).
The fact that regeneration energy can be used to heal as opposed to regenerate is supported in both Let's Kill Hitler (when River gives him her regenration energy to bring him back from the brink of death - or are you suggesting that is another regeneration?) and The Angels Take Manhattan (when he heals River's wrist with his regeneration energy, or is that another regeneration minus the face change?).
The actual evidence supports the claims contrary to your suggestion. Whilst it's not fact that it wasn't a regeneration, it is a much closer explanation to the actual happenings than your theory (not FACT) is.
Whilst placing the Hurt Doctor (got to call him something) in chronological order is interesting. It is his life that I most anticipate being revealed in the special. Obviously, at least part of it, was/is/will be dark. Was it long, with adventures and companion(s)? For it to only last a moment would be a tragedy.
The fact that regeneration energy can be used to heal as opposed to regenerate is supported in both Let's Kill Hitler (when River gives him her regenration energy to bring him back from the brink of death - or are you suggesting that is another regeneration?) and The Angels Take Manhattan (when he heals River's wrist with his regeneration energy, or is that another regeneration minus the face change?).
The actual evidence supports the claims contrary to your suggestion. Whilst it's not fact that it wasn't a regeneration, it is a much closer explanation to the actual happenings than your theory (not FACT) is.
I'll conceed that DT may not have regenerated. :sleep:
Then again - he may have! I will say however, that it looked RATHER regeneratey to me.
Comments
When DT was questioned (post regeneration) why he didn't change faces - he did not it reply 'Cause it wasn't a full regeneration?' - he reply that he syphoned off the regenerative energy that would have otherwise changed his face.
Full regeneration minus the new face.
He regenerated. Just because it doesn't fit with YOUR perception of what a regeneration is, doesn't mean it didn't happen RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.
As for Matt Smith burning regenerative energy to heal River - that's all he did. Burn some energy. There was never any question of him regenerating. Also, he made it clear he owed River some of the energy she gave him - when she infused him with her last ten regnerations, so that he might live - in Let's Kill Hitler.
I'm afraid the transcripts don't support that interpretation. "Used the regeneration energy to heal myself", just as you described Eleventh doing. Not "regenerated to heal myself, but chose to keep the same face". "Stop the energy going all the way" clearly discounts any claims of a full regeneration.
And just because it fits in with YOUR perception of what a regeneration is, doesn't mean it happened at all.
At the very least, you should probably stop labelling things as FACT, because of all the guesses and assumptions you've made.
An opinion that an opinion is not a fact is not really an opinion. FACT!
but it is only my opinion not fact
So, does anybody have any suitable DNA handy?
And that's a FACT:D
Ergo, proper regenerations don't give him a choice. Ergo, what happened in Journey's End was not a proper regeneration.
As for why he was so distraught at regenerating in 'End of Time' (as opposed to 'Journeys End') - it's because he didn't have a severed hand 'handy' - so didn't have the option of syphoning off the face-changing energy.
So he had a 'Traditional' regeneration. :sleep:
In what way was he "entirely new"?
Antibiotics can give life to a dying Doctor. Anti-venom could give life to a dying Doctor. Regeneration energy from the severed hand could give life to a dying Doctor.
None of these things imply an actual regeneration.
It's speculation at best and, to me, it doesn't sound credible at all, let alone a FACT.
Remind us what that's called again?
So, in other words, completely unlike any other regeneration? A 'textbook' regeneration involves the Doctor walking away with an entirely new face and body. That didn't happen, and two things did happen that usually don't. I'd say that's as far from 'proper' as you can get.
Well actually, that didn't tend to happen to the first 8 Doctors so I guess we can't really read too much into it, if you ask me
For all we know... cake mix flew out thier nose! :eek:
More likely fishfingers and custard
He must have got the craving from somewhere :cool:
I can see it's been explained to you elsewhere, but you are choosing to ignore what the actual explanations according to the Doctor himself are telling you, so why should you listen to the others explaining why calling it a fact is wrong.
Anyway, just as an addendum - the regeneration energy was used to 'heal' (in his words) not regenerate. He then siphoned off the unused energy into the nearby receptacle (his hand).
The fact that regeneration energy can be used to heal as opposed to regenerate is supported in both Let's Kill Hitler (when River gives him her regenration energy to bring him back from the brink of death - or are you suggesting that is another regeneration?) and The Angels Take Manhattan (when he heals River's wrist with his regeneration energy, or is that another regeneration minus the face change?).
The actual evidence supports the claims contrary to your suggestion. Whilst it's not fact that it wasn't a regeneration, it is a much closer explanation to the actual happenings than your theory (not FACT) is.
Then again - he may have! I will say however, that it looked RATHER regeneratey to me.
I stand by all the rest of my FACTS however.
Actually the first and second "FACTS" are essentially the same but the last FACT is probably true
Mind you, I'm not sure if we know if the human Doctor was known as the Doctor. Maybe Rose came up with another name for him
True, it did.
And besides the above conceit, there was only one other FACT in your post - of which I have no argument!
I wasn't trolling. I meant every word! But it really has been hilarious.
FACT!!!!11!!!!!! Eleven!!!